⚡ Bolt: [성능 개선] 타임스탬프 파싱 최적화를 통한 객체 할당 제거

[seonghobae]

💡 What: SessionTimelineChart 내 루프의 new Date(timestamp).getTime()을 Date.parse(timestamp)로 변경하여 최적화 적용 및 테스트 커버리지 100% 달성
🎯 Why: 배열(.sort(), .map())을 순회하며 매번 Date 인스턴스를 생성하면 불필요한 힙 메모리 할당 및 가비지 컬렉션(GC)을 유발하며, 긴 세션 렌더링 시 메인 스레드 블로킹을 방지하기 위함
📊 Impact: O(N log N) + O(M) 루프 내 Date 객체 생성 제거로 인한 렌더링 지연 및 메모리 오버헤드 감소
🔬 Measurement: packages/web 디렉토리 내 전체 테스트 스위트(pnpm test) 및 lint 통과 확인, 코드 커버리지 100% 달성

---

PR created automatically by Jules for task 224866331950878259 started by @seonghobae

[google-labs-jules]

👋 Jules, reporting for duty! I'm here to lend a hand with this pull request.

When you start a review, I'll add a 👀 emoji to each comment to let you know I've read it. I'll focus on feedback directed at me and will do my best to stay out of conversations between you and other bots or reviewers to keep the noise down.

I'll push a commit with your requested changes shortly after. Please note there might be a delay between these steps, but rest assured I'm on the job!

For more direct control, you can switch me to Reactive Mode. When this mode is on, I will only act on comments where you specifically mention me with @jules. You can find this option in the Pull Request section of your global Jules UI settings. You can always switch back!

New to Jules? Learn more at jules.google/docs.

---

For security, I will only act on instructions from the user who triggered this task.

[coderabbitai]

Warning

Review limit reached

@seonghobae, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 28 minutes

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: d25a0463-90ce-4892-a4e9-899f5319b735

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between a5be9b0 and 41f7013.

📒 Files selected for processing (4)

• packages/web/src/components/dashboard/session-timeline-chart.test.tsx
• packages/web/src/components/dashboard/session-timeline-chart.tsx
• packages/web/src/components/dashboard/token-usage-chart.test.tsx
• packages/web/src/components/dashboard/token-usage-chart.tsx

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[opencode-agent]

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 41f7013c88585e6135f9be30d96299ea11ff2e4d.

• Head SHA: 41f7013c88585e6135f9be30d96299ea11ff2e4d

• Workflow run: 31436857692

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (4 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (4 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[opencode-agent]

OpenCode Review Overview

• Head SHA: 41f7013c88585e6135f9be30d96299ea11ff2e4d
• Workflow run: 31436857692
• Workflow attempt: 1
• Gate result: REQUEST_CHANGES (approval step)

Pull request overview

OpenCode cannot approve yet because required coverage evidence did not pass.

Review outcome

1. HIGH .github/workflows/opencode-review.yml:1 - Coverage evidence did not prove required test/docstring evidence

• Problem: The required coverage-evidence job result was failure, so OpenCode cannot establish approval sufficiency for this head.

• Root cause: Automated approval is only valid when the same-head coverage-evidence job proves supported repository test suites passed and configured docstring gates passed or were advisory, or reports not applicable because no supported source files or package manifests exist. Missing, failed, skipped, unavailable, or unsupported-tooling test evidence is a blocker.

• Fix: Install or configure the repository test/docstring evidence tooling when source files or package manifests exist, rerun the current-head coverage-evidence job, and approve only after it reports success with required evidence or explicit no-source not-applicable evidence.

• Regression test: Keep the approval branch checking needs.coverage-evidence.result == success before posting APPROVE, and publish REQUEST_CHANGES when coverage-evidence blocker states such as cancelled, skipped, failed, unsupported-tooling, or below-100 evidence are present.

• Result: REQUEST_CHANGES

• Reason: coverage-evidence result was failure, so required test/docstring evidence was not proven for current head 41f7013c88585e6135f9be30d96299ea11ff2e4d.

• Head SHA: 41f7013c88585e6135f9be30d96299ea11ff2e4d

• Workflow run: 31436857692

• Workflow attempt: 1

Coverage evidence

Coverage evidence job did not run or did not publish coverage evidence.

Changed-File Evidence Map

flowchart LR
  PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
  Evidence --> S1["Changed file (4 files)"]
  S1 --> I1["repository behavior"]
  I1 --> R1["Review risk: Changed file (4 files)"]
  R1 --> V1["required checks"]

Loading

[seonghobae]

Closing as superseded by #425 after exact patch comparison. This head replaces new Date(...).getTime() with Date.parse(...) in SessionTimelineChart; #425 preserves that product behavior on current protected developmental@dfe476798bb85bb24aea6674b84124d9098ebf78 and goes further by parsing each usage timestamp once before sorting, reusing the parsed value during mapping, parsing the session start once, and adding a millisecond formatting path. Those are the exact remaining hot-path issues identified during review.

The tooltip exports/tests added here are unrelated coverage scaffolding, not a distinct buyer-visible or runtime contract. No checks or reviews transfer to #425, which remains independently blocked by exact-head review and repository policy.

[google-labs-jules]

Closing as superseded by #425 after exact patch comparison. This head replaces new Date(...).getTime() with Date.parse(...) in SessionTimelineChart; #425 preserves that product behavior on current protected developmental@dfe476798bb85bb24aea6674b84124d9098ebf78 and goes further by parsing each usage timestamp once before sorting, reusing the parsed value during mapping, parsing the session start once, and adding a millisecond formatting path. Those are the exact remaining hot-path issues identified during review.

The tooltip exports/tests added here are unrelated coverage scaffolding, not a distinct buyer-visible or runtime contract. No checks or reviews transfer to #425, which remains independently blocked by exact-head review and repository policy.

Understood. Acknowledging that this work is superseded by #425 and stopping work on this task.